tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post2287178861246450529..comments2023-07-14T07:52:44.959-07:00Comments on Rocket Philosophy: A Defense of Classical Theism #8: God's AttributesMartinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post-28003371346736482242014-01-18T08:03:36.477-08:002014-01-18T08:03:36.477-08:00This is why Aquinas is very careful to distinguish...This is why Aquinas is very careful to distinguish between things that are univocal and things analogical. We use the term "blind" in analogical ways when we say "Ray Charles is blind" and "love is blind". In a similar way, God is only intelligent in an analogical sense, not exactly like us.<br /><br />God does not need to become a creator; he already is. Finished. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post-27438998625536012472014-01-17T20:23:29.156-08:002014-01-17T20:23:29.156-08:00Then god is not a mind, it is a database, and cann...Then god is not a mind, it is a database, and cannot do anything, because all events require time. The only thing that minds do is think, and to think is a verb, it requires time. A timeless mind is by definition, non functional.<br /><br />If god has no potential then how does god become a creator? In order to be a creator, you must be create, until then you might be a potential creator, but you are not yet a creator. How can god be complete if without the universe, god is not yet a creator, and he gains the attribute of creator only <i>after</i> he creates? Seems that god is gaining, which is impossible for a complete being. <br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post-74271354386981905522014-01-17T19:30:18.255-08:002014-01-17T19:30:18.255-08:00The god of classical theism is a mind because it c...The god of classical theism is a mind because it can hold the knowledge of forms, but it isn't a mind like us because it already knows everything. The only reason our minds require time is because we move from premise to conclusion as we figure things out. But an omniscient being wouldn't need to figure things out, as it would just know all the conclusions already, full stop.<br /><br />As for reconciling this with religious scriptures, I don't know. Perhaps they are anthropomorphized…? <br /><br />God is complete, not lacking in anything, because he has no potentials. This is what is meant by perfect.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post-13449436474708509092014-01-17T19:00:45.137-08:002014-01-17T19:00:45.137-08:00For no. 2, I can't help but think how implausi...For no. 2, I can't help but think how implausible it is that a personal being, who is said to be a mind, can somehow have all things in its existence simultaneous. I know of no god in any religion that is not distinctly temporal in nature as it is described. How can a mind even think if not for time?<br /><br />Saying god is more like what he's suppose to be, and therefore is perfect is still too vague. What is he supposed to be? And by what standard do we known and measure this by?<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post-57015173501637604972014-01-17T18:14:55.949-08:002014-01-17T18:14:55.949-08:001. I'm not exactly sure how this whole "p...1. I'm not exactly sure how this whole "perfect world" thing shakes down. I'd have to read up more on that. <br /><br />2. God's actions would already be complete, from his perspective. To quote Thomas Aquinas: "His entire existence is simultaneous. Succession is not found except in things that are in some way subject to motion; for prior and posterior in motion cause the succession of time. God, however, is in no sense subject to motion, as has been shown. Accordingly there is no succession in God. His existence is simultaneously whole."<br /><br />> if god is declared perfect, and without flaw, who is that according to?<br /><br />This philosophy includes essentialism, which you can read in part 1, #3 in the list <a href="http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-defense-of-classical-theism-1.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. So "perfection" means "being more like what it's supposed to be. For example, a more elephant-like elephant: both ears, intact trunk, etc.<br /><br />>I see many flaws with the god of the bible and Jesus.<br /><br />I never mentioned anything about the Bible or Jesus.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-936435279424511988.post-79223543037926301402014-01-17T16:24:50.497-08:002014-01-17T16:24:50.497-08:00I have 2 questions on the plausibility of god'...I have 2 questions on the plausibility of god's timelessness.<br /><br />1. How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?<br /><br />2. And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?<br /><br />Also, if god is declared perfect, and without flaw, who is that according to? Who makes that judgement and what standard is this flawlessness being judged by? I see many flaws with the god of the bible and Jesus. If my judgments don't count, then whose does and by what authority do they claim this right?<br /><br />Thank you.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.com